cuts - Wednesday's Spending Review

[mrsbaldwin]

Brace yourself ladies - these cuts are big, there will be tens of thousands of public sector redundancies and it's said (by the Fawcett Society amongst others) that they will disproportionately affect women.

Some workers will get some sort of payoff, and some will be pleased to go. Some will find new jobs.

But I reckon the overall effect (licks finger and holds it in the wind) will be to drive down women's wages, meaning that once you are made redundant from your public sector post you may find more work but it will be at a lower rate and the extra competition for jobs across the board will drive wages down across the board. This may be true for men as well but I think it will affect women - mums - more.

If you are watching the press coverage on Weds, what do you think the effects of the cuts and the job losses for women (and mums) will be?

[ImGideonsMumAndIHateHimToo]

Ali- it's abd enough spamming (theres another somewhere as well) but at least you could get a link right!

And you know, just a hint but if yu want to sell go to places where people are discussing clothes not cuts in income.

[SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood]

aliss why do you keep posting that?

[Laugs]

One thing women might be concerned about: Simon Hughes (I think) on BBC Breakfast this morning was talking about how business would pick up the slack and be able to replace the 500,000 lost public sector jobs. He said something like 'government just needs to get out of the way and let the private sector get on with it'

What did he mean by this? To me government 'getting out of the way' sounds like a loosening of regulations on employees rights, things like maternity pay, minimum wage and so on. I don't think we should only be concerned about job losses, but the quality of the jobs we get to keep.

[wonderstuff]

Can I nominate BoffinMum for PM? It really irks me that the recession was due in no small part to public school educated idiots in banking who are still pulling in a hefty wage packet and paying minimal tax, yet women and children are the ones who will lose out the most. The massive reduction in employment has got to affect the economy, surely. Surely cutting the social housing budget by 50% when 2 million are on waiting lists for decent housing, the amount of jobs that will be lost as a result when the building trade is already on its knees.. There is a massive amount of waste in government spending that really needs to be addressed. It all seems so knee jerk and short-sighted.

[Jcee]

Maybe its because she knows something about the cuts and housing policy and we'll all need it when we're out on the streets but as Gideon said you think she'd get the link right

[Jcee]

Laugs - that's a really good point and also if private contractors are going to be running our prisons and building affordable houses, we need to be sure about quality of the services they'll deliver.

[SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood]

I reported her asking MN to make her stop!

[Jcee]

everything - I agree there is some shocking waste and non delivery on PFI contracts

[throckenholt]

One thing women might be concerned about: Simon Hughes (I think) on BBC Breakfast this morning was talking about how business would pick up the slack and be able to replace the 500,000 lost public sector jobs. He said something like 'government just needs to get out of the way and let the private sector get on with it'


I don't see many private sector firms in my area who are champing at the bit to employ lots more people. As I understand it private sector is hamstrung by not being able to borrow money to invest, and are unwilling to risk it because they have no idea when things will get better. That is hardly a recipe for massive job creation in the private sector.

[wonderstuff]

What I don't get about PFI is that it was so obvious that it had the potential to go horribly wrong, don't get why anyone thought it was a good idea~?? Crazy.

[TheJollyPirate]

Awaiting the televised review with dread.

[DivineInspiration]

"[T]here are many many parts of the private sector almost solely dependent on public sector work."

Yes, completely true. I believe PricewaterhouseCoopers did a report on this last week, estimating that around 40,000 private sector jobs could be lost for every 100,000 public sector jobs lost. Public sector cuts will affect many small and medium-sized businesses who rely heavily on public sector contracts. IT, business services, consultancy, printing and publishing, construction. All already feeling the pinch and it'll get worse. I don't see how the private sector is going to step in and employ up to a million extra people when many businesses are themselves struggling as it is.

[LaydeeBlahBlah]

AP - thanks for the sarky useful comment about handbags. ffs.

I don't, however, believe that investing in communities and those worse off in society can be compared to whether I choose an LV or Primark bag out of my household budget.

And actually, yes, if we had secure employment and not the threat of cuts hanging over the public sector, I might decide to save and buy myself a nice handbag - not, as at present, lie awake at night wondering exactly which day my husband will come home from work to tell me he has not got a job anymore and my son will have to leave his SN school as we have to sell our house

but then, he is simple public sector employer provding housing for those in need (oh the irony). He works bloody hard, we have a bloody hard home life and, in a clever divide and conquer tactic, this shower have got poor people battering even poorer people.

These cuts could be done through taxation and much slower but then that wouldn't suit the 'I'm alrights' hey?